Is it moral for parents to decide not have gay children?

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

well, I kind of wanted to avoid that, since that enters the area of the general abortion debate. That's why we must assume that the changes can take place before it becomes a human being, where ever that line is drawn.

Therin lies an unfortunate problem - there are people who will acknowledge a baby as a full fledged human entity the moment sperm makes contact, and the issue is compounded by an unclear earliest time these edits can viably be made. Some might be on board if you go early enough, but that begs the question - how early is your hypothetical early? Could this question be taken as far back as overriding sperm directives and having the sperm bring in definitive traits to do something or another, thus resulting in no actual changes to a developing baby?

[basics]

According to a recent scientific report there is no such thing as a gay gene. It all comes down to preference by any child as it grows and so parents have no say in the matter. So what the report says is that even if parents could have designer children there is no guarantee that none of them would turn out to be gay.

[Gaidin]

According to a recent scientific report there is no such thing as a gay gene. It all comes down to preference by any child as it grows and so parents have no say in the matter. So what the report says is that even if parents could have designer children there is no guarantee that none of them would turn out to be gay.

Boy did you misconstrue that study exactly how they predicted you would.

[Prodromos]

Some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism. This proves that alcoholism is a good thing. And if you disagree, then frankly you're a bigot (and a racist).

It's science, man.

[Gaidin]

Some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism. This proves that alcoholism is a good thing. And if you disagree, then frankly you're a bigot (and a racist).

It's science, man.

The point being, there are 8 genetic loci for something as simple as skin color. And this is much more complex a question. Of course there's not a simple "gene" for whether someone is gay. Basics and his lack of understanding of science basically blew the entire idea up right in his own face.

Some people are also genetically predisposed to cancer. Is cancer a good thing?

[95thrifleman]

Some people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism. This proves that alcoholism is a good thing. And if you disagree, then frankly you're a bigot (and a racist).

It's science, man.

You are comparing homosexuality to alcoholism?

[basics]

The point being, there are 8 genetic loci for something as simple as skin color. And this is much more complex a question. Of course there's not a simple "gene" for whether someone is gay. Basics and his lack of understanding of science basically blew the entire idea up right in his own face.

Some people are also genetically predisposed to cancer. Is cancer a good thing?

Gaidin,

What blew up in my face? I referred to a report in the Daily Mail that from some American studies these guys just announced that there are no genetics lonked to homosexuality. The report is just some two or three days old. Are you suggesting then that like cancer homosexuality can be cured?

[Gaidin]

Gaidin,

What blew up in my face? I referred to a report in the Daily Mail that from some American studies these guys just announced that there are no genetics lonked to homosexuality. The report is just some two or three days old. Are you suggesting then that like cancer homosexuality can be cured?

Cancer of course can be cured...depending on what cancer you have and what we know about it. Much less what caused it. And whether you were genetically predisposed to get cancer. I'm not going to go into something unrelated to this thread that you obviously don't know anything about the way you literally mangle words here.

You're looking for a 'gay gene'. The entire make up of genetics would suggest there are a much more complex array leading to predispositions, which is also then effected by environment. Remember, you have eight loci for your skin color, just your skin color. And over your life that is effected by your environment and how harshly your body is treated.

[Prodromos]

Here's what I don't get. On a naturalistic account of reality, all behavior is genetic or otherwise beyond the individual's control. So what does it add to the discussion to say that homosexuality is genetic?

[YouBeautyRec]

No. Nothing wrong here. Quite the opposite my good man!

[Cyclops]

Cancer of course can be cured...depending on what cancer you have and what we know about it. Much less what caused it. And whether you were genetically predisposed to get cancer. I'm not going to go into something unrelated to this thread that you obviously don't know anything about the way you literally mangle words here.

You're looking for a 'gay gene'. The entire make up of genetics would suggest there are a much more complex array leading to predispositions, which is also then effected by environment. Remember, you have eight loci for your skin color, just your skin color. And over your life that is effected by your environment and how harshly your body is treated.

Indeed.

Many parents have already decided not to have gay children, by "raising them straight". I don't know if its moral or not, but it seems to have led to a lot of suicides, self hatred and secret sex in toilets. Unintended consequences and all that.

"Gay" is a broad term for a complex of behaviours, and oversimplification. That said there may be some genes that expressed in the correct combination tend to same-sex attraction.

Is it moral to select against genetic predisposition? First up there are too many moral codes (most of them more or less inconsistent) to give a plain answer.

Pragmatically it will happen. We already manipulate and defy our genes, by not dying of genetic diseases, by selecting animals for traits not present in the parent population, by adopting a social system that tends to sterilise the rich and encourages to poor to multiply (I'm no saying the poverty is genetic, but there may be a genetic basis for some kinds of poverty).

I'm an agnostic, but if the Creator made someone gay surely it goes against God's Plan to "cure" them before birth. That's one moral outlook. Another might be that "being gay" is a sin and a work of Satan and needs to be stamped because somehow God mucked up and needs help from geneticists.

I shy away from too much interference in genetics. I guess its cowardly ignorance, as we have successfully genetically manipulated many animals (eg dogs) and lets be fair, they have selected us too (eg its likely mega-Hyenas inadvertently selected our ancestors for brachiation). I do fear over-simplification of our genome: diversity from a Malthusian viewpoint is a better bet than uniformity.

People as individuals are bloody stupid and if something becomes fashionable it could lead to our species becoming extinct by that stupidity. Think about all the silly young things with their dyed hair. If people start selecting babies for purple hair (for example) or rabid heterosexuality or supporting *insert my team/religion/political party here* we become sitting ducks for the *my team* virus of 2125.

Haemophiliacs were almost wiped out by AIDS, should we have selected them for extinction sooner? There are desirable traits seemingly combined with undesirable ones too, IIRC there's some Sardinians with greatly expanded lifespans but a higher prevalence of baldness. Maybe the haemophiliacs had a genetic trait we never suspected (eg immunity to alien small arms fire) that might have saved us in a future genetic selection event.

[basics]

Gaidin and Cyclops,

I'm going to make my stand on what God's word tells us. Man and woman were made in Adam and Eve as perfect in the image of God. In other words they were made for each other with the sole purpose of inhabiting the earth. When they fell from grace added to by the knowledge of good and evil their nature changed because evil rather than grace now ruled their lives. So, God handed them over to the lusts of their hearts which came in all shapes and standards. This is where predisposition comes in. Over the years of my lifetime it was believed that there was a genetic influence and so my posting on that was based on that report and if true then genetics has nothing to do with how men and women have turned out. In other words all the scientific investigation, even tinkering, is not going to change what God has laid on mankind because of Adam's fall. All sin can only be rectified through the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ and that on an individual basis. So, will there ever be a day when parents can choose not to have homosexual children? I don't believe so but I do believe that homosexuality can be overcome like any other sin by Jesus Christ.

[Gaidin]

Gaidin and Cyclops,

I'm going to make my stand on what God's word tells us.

Be wrong.

This is where predisposition comes in. Over the years of my lifetime it was believed that there was a genetic influence and so my posting on that was based on that report and if true then genetics has nothing to do with how men and women have turned out. In other words all the scientific investigation, even tinkering, is not going to change what God has laid on mankind because of Adam's fall. All sin can only be rectified through the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ and that on an individual basis. So, will there ever be a day when parents can choose not to have homosexual children? I don't believe so but I do believe that homosexuality can be overcome like any other sin by Jesus Christ.

If your god made man and the world then your god made genetics. Remember, humanity isn't the only...being...with genetics. Genetics is just as perfect as you say we once were.

It is what lets humans cross breed across family lines. It is what screws up humans when they interbreed within family lines. Consequences for actions. Maybe why Adam and Eve lived for hundreds of years and eventually longevity started dropping from your point of view when there's so few people to screw and pass on the torch with huh...

It is what lets animals breed safely. It is what lets plants "breed" as bees carry their pollen from plant to plant. This is a system in every, even non-sentient, biological life kingdom but viral(there is a debate though whether viruses are to be classified as life). Even bacterial...though they just sort of split off from themselves.

If you say God created life, this is not really a system you can argue with.

[basics]

Gaidin,

Well if God didn't create all things then who did? If it's a case of the survival of the fittest where did morality come from? Indeed why would it bother anyone who is a homosexual or not? After all we're just a bundle of chemicals that makes up life in any sphere, the only desire being to survive at any expense. It's strange that in an era of great achievements the world is dying despite them and man remains the same at odds with his Creator. That is not a genetic issue, no rather a spiritual issue that's embedded in the heart of everything that lives caused by man. What surprises me most is that instead of turning to God for deliverance man thinks he has the answer when indeed he is the major problem.

[Cyclops]

Basics I'm sorry but God left Adam alone with the animals for a while to see if they could be his "helper": this experiment failed and then he made Eve to be his "helper". I don't want to think what that means in terms of theology.

As for homosexuality being a sin well so is charging interest. Strange the church never seems to take on the Banks, they pick on poor kids until the kids kill themselves.

[YouBeautyRec]

Gaidin and Cyclops,

So, will there ever be a day when parents can choose not to have homosexual children? I don't believe so but I do believe that homosexuality can be overcome like any other sin by Jesus Christ.

I absolutely agree. The Lord God is Alpha and Omega.

[basics]

Basics I'm sorry but God left Adam alone with the animals for a while to see if they could be his "helper": this experiment failed and then he made Eve to be his "helper". I don't want to think what that means in terms of theology.

As for homosexuality being a sin well so is charging interest. Strange the church never seems to take on the Banks, they pick on poor kids until the kids kill themselves.

Cyclops,

That's a wee bit of wishful thinking because Adam was put in charge of the animals who by the way had their helpmeet in that they were male and female whilst Adam had no-one. Therefore God made Eve out of Adam to be his helpmeet thus showing the layers of authority that all things stand in the eyes of God. That authority was laid down by Paul as the churches newly established came into being him only making it plain what was from the beginning. Christ is the Head of man and man the head of the woman and mankind head over all other living things.

Their is no league table as far as sin is concerned because everyone falls short of the glory of God so the importance lies in the separation from God and how to get round that. Therefore, " God gave us His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life." No matter the sin, it is punishable by death to everlasting torment unless the sinner repents and is born again of the Spirit of God through the blood shed by Jesus Christ on that fateful day at Golgotha. It's all of God.

[Cyclops]

Cyclops,

That's a wee bit of wishful thinking because Adam was put in charge of the animals who by the way had their helpmeet in that they were male and female

That's not right old chap, nowhere in the second version of the creation story does it say the animals were male and female. If you think the text is wrong then please say so. .

whilst Adam had no-one.

"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
It very clearly says God will make him an helpmeet, and shows him a load of animals. Only when Adam can't find an helpmeet from this beauty pageant/naming ceremony does God make Eve. Why does God offer Adam animals as an helpmeet?

Therefore God made Eve out of Adam to be his helpmeet thus showing the layers of authority that all things stand in the eyes of God...

...but man is made of dust, and woman is made of man. Isn't that reverse hierarchy? Surely a person is more than dust.

Also in Genesis 1 (the first creation story and by your reasoning the more authoritative one) man and woman are made at the same moment, and both in God's image: by that example surely both have equal authority. Or is that bit wrong?

I mean the Bible is endlessly self-contradictory. For every woolly bit of exegesis we can find the reverse.

[basics]

Cyclops,

The first chapter of Genesis concentrates on God being the Creator, each day telling of what He created on that day whilst the second chapter emphasises more of what He created and for what purpose He created them. Why He doesn't emphasise until chapter seven the gender of each animal was because when Moses was given to write it down, the people already knew that procreation had to have male and female. In other words if God had only made males how could we reach chapter seven? That's the problem with taking sections of the Bible to make points without the overall context being taken into account.

God made all things before He made man and so man and woman was the ultimate of creation and made in His image. Creation was closed with nothing to be added and all this a history for the people who had known for the most only gods in Egypt. So where does that leave us? Well, as Jesus said in reference to these books, they are, " ....every word that cometh out of the mouth of God." So here we have the Person whom John calls the Light of the world being the One on Whom everything that was made was not made by anyone other than Him, making contradictory errors in His account of how He made the worlds and all in them. As for the dust of the ground I have no problem with that considering that most of the world now believes that a chance meeting of chemicals produced us.

[Genghis Skahn]

According to a recent scientific report there is no such thing as a gay gene. It all comes down to preference by any child as it grows and so parents have no say in the matter. So what the report says is that even if parents could have designer children there is no guarantee that none of them would turn out to be gay.

We all know that your understanding of science is very limited, basics--but you could at least post a link to the article you read... I'm willing to bet, however, that the article does not at any point say "It all comes down to preference by any child...". Here's an extremely recent article from Reuters posted on August 29, 2019, titled "No 'gay gene' but study finds genetic link to sexual behavior":

By Kate Kelland
LONDON (Reuters) - A large scientific study into the biological basis of sexual behavior has confirmed there is no single "gay gene" but that a complex mix of genetics and environment affects whether a person has same-sex sexual partners.
The research, which analyzed data on DNA and sexual experiences from almost half a million people, found there are thousands of genetic variants linked to same-sex sexual behavior, most with very small effects.
Five of the genetic markers were "significantly" associated with same-sex behavior, the researchers said, but even these are far from being predictive of a person's sexual preferences.
"We scanned the entire human genome and found a handful - five to be precise - of locations that are clearly associated with whether a person reports in engaging in same-sex sexual behavior," said Andrea Ganna, a biologist at the Institute of Molecular Medicine in Finland who co-led the research.
He said these have "a very small effect" and, combined, explain "considerably less than 1% of the variance in the self-reported same-sex sexual behavior."
This means that non-genetic factors - such as environment, upbringing, personality, nurture - are far more significant in influencing a person's choice of sexual partner, just as with most other personality, behavioral and physical human traits, the researchers said.
The study - the largest of its kind - analyzed survey responses and performed analyses known as genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on data from more than 470,000 people who had given DNA samples and lifestyle information to the UK Biobank and to the U.S. genetics testing company 23andMeInc.
Asked why they had wanted to conduct such research, the team told reporters on a teleconference that previous studies on this topic had mostly been too small to offer robust conclusions.
"Previous studies were small and underpowered," Ganna said. "So we decided to form a large international consortium and collected data for (almost) 500,000 people, (which) is approximately 100 times bigger than previous studies on this topic."
The results, published in the journal Science on Thursday, found no clear patterns among genetic variants that could be used to meaningfully predict or identify a person's sexual behavior, the researchers said.
"We've clarified that there's a lot of diversity out there," said Benjamin Neale, a member at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard who worked with Ganna. "This moves our understanding (of same-sex sex) to a deeper and more nuanced place."
Sexual rights campaigners welcomed the study, saying it "provides even more evidence that being gay or lesbian is a natural part of human life".
"This new research also re-confirms the long established understanding that there is no conclusive degree to which nature or nurture influence how a gay or lesbian person behaves," said Zeke Stokes of the U.S.-based LGBTQ rights group, GLAAD.

So yeah, your claim that "It all comes down to preference..." is almost certainly BS, and more than likely just a product of your own ideological projections. The issue is far more nuanced than you care to understand. Also, I know I shouldn't be surprised that you think homosexuality is a sin, but damn man--really?

I don't believe so but I do believe that homosexuality can be overcome like any other sin by Jesus Christ.

Hmmm, let's see what psychologists have to say on the matter...

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/b...y-the-gay-away

I also tell clients that reparative and conversion therapies, besides being ineffective, are psychologically harmful to gays and lesbians, which is another reason I do not recommend them and will not assist clients in procuring such treatment.

So yeah, prayer isn't exactly helpful for overcoming homosexuality.

----

Here's what I don't get. On a naturalistic account of reality, all behavior is genetic or otherwise beyond the individual's control. So what does it add to the discussion to say that homosexuality is genetic?

Prodromos, I just don't even understand this post. No well-respected Biologist, Psychologist or M.D. believes that all behavior is genetic. That's what adherents to eugenics believe, and I shouldn't have to remind you how discredited eugenics is as a scientific field of study. But onto your other point "What does it add to the discussion to say that homosexuality is genetic?" chiefly, it establishes the point that homosexuality is not really a choice(although if you read the article posted above, homosexuality is clearly not JUST a result of genetic factors, but environmental ones as well), and unlike your comparison of the genetic element of homosexuality to the heritability of alcoholism, homosexuality is not considered a disease by the DSM--so the comparison is just plain ridiculous.

To stay on topic, however, I think that the new large-scale study I linked throws doubt on the idea on whether or not you could actually "prevent" a child from becoming gay via genetic manipulation, since there are too many other environmental factors involved.